Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As the background is visually rich it seems the idael subject for a movie, so why has no one made one for the cinema?

There has been, actually. It was called Ultramarines, and it was garbage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarines:_A_Warhammer_40,000_Movie

Yup, seemed very low budget. Definitely only watchable if you're a big fan, even then I wouldn't recommend it.

I think OP is talking about a proper, high-budget, live-action movie. I could easily see 40k movies equaling Avatar in scale and visuals, and, the story and concept art is already there for screenwriters to convert to script and directors to construct films around (as well as a huge fan-following: aka guaranteed profit). I really don't see why A-list directors and production houses aren't considering it - and, instead, are simply rehashing stories like Beauty and the Beast in live-action format.

Comic book movies have become a huge trend in Hollywood, so, there is clearly a market for films centered around the 40k universe. As I said earlier, most of the pre-production has already been done.

Lancelot185 wrote:
I think OP is talking about a proper, high-budget, live-action movie. I could easily see 40k movies equaling Avatar in scale and visuals, and, the story and concept art is already there for screenwriters to convert to script and directors to construct films around (as well as a huge fan-following: aka guaranteed profit). I really don't see why A-list directors and production houses aren't considering it - and, instead, are simply rehashing stories like Beauty and the Beast in live-action format.

Comic book movies have become a huge trend in Hollywood, so, there is clearly a market for films centered around the 40k universe. As I said earlier, most of the pre-production has already been done.

Because Comic Book movies don't have a theocratic british nazi empire as the GOOD guys.

The 40k universe is, as the slogan says, pretty grim. That's one of it's defining, and appealing factors. GoT, for example, is also pretty grim, with the majority of central characters having done bad and immoral things. It's also one of the most famous TV shows ever made. I think it would simply add to the depth of any 40k film to highlight the immorality and evil within the good guys (it's also understandable, given the state of the universe). After all, evil overlords and white knights are an outdated concept in mature films. Anti-hero's are the new craze. People like flaws, and they like redeemable qualities.

Mostly because the universe is primarily interesting as a setting rather than because there are particularly compelling characters or stories in it. Even fans of the IP are typically more invested in what's commonly called "lore" rather than in the setting's characters as characters. Further, virtually all existing 40k writing is very, very bad. Finally, the IP has basically no broader cultural cachet.

Compare to comic books. These are extremely character-focused, being concerned with the adventures and growth of particular heroes. They're basically ready-to-make movies -- starting with an origin story you can just lift whole comic arcs and put them on film, and they work as-is. Often the ideas in a comic book are at least potentially interesting -- the X-Men movies have made the most of this -- and, while execution can vary, the basic sort of Spiderman story is a solid one. Most importantly, comic characters have very broad appeal far beyond comic readership. Literally everyone knows who Superman is.

40k also doesn't really lend itself to the tone that people seem to want in blockbusters nowadays. Marvel's movies are basically without exception very fun; they're light, there are lots of jokes, they're very colorful, the violence is spectacular but not brutal, etc. There's lots of this even in Fox's X-Men movies, and I note that everyone agrees that the best thing they've done is Deadpool. The Dark Knight is really the only serious comic movie that's been well-received, and trying to match that tone with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman has not worked out well for Warner Bros. This isn't a new phenomenon.

40k probably works as a Metallocalypse-style parody of the sort of thing it is, maybe, though this might still only appeal to existing fans. But that's a low-budget cartoon, not a major blockbuster.

 JJ wrote:
Yup, seemed very low budget. Definitely only watchable if you're a big fan, even then I wouldn't recommend it.

Yep. Picked it up on release, even though I wasn't super optimistic over how it looked before the fact...

Really disappointing, especially when you consider it had John Hurt in it and it was written by Dan Abnett...
Seriously, what happened?

There has been no 40k movie because the IP has zero value. The 40k brand has limited recognition outside of a niche market that can't buy enough tickets to make it profitable, and anyone who thinks that the 40k concept has value can just rip off the same sources that GW ripped off and make their own "grimdark space war" movie that is virtually identical to 40k as far as non-fanboy audiences are concerned.

Aside from the licensing issues 40k just isn't good movie material. It's great as a setting for writing your own stories and fighting your own battles, but the stories are mediocre at best. Characters are dull and seldom developed beyond a cliche or two and a listing of their equipment and combat skills, the plots are rarely more than straightforward military campaigns, and large parts of the fluff (especially since 5th edition) are just plain stupid. And to even attempt to turn this mediocrity into a story you have to spend vast amounts of effort establishing what the 40k setting is so that an unfamiliar audience has any clue what's going on. So you end up with a bloated mess of a movie that puts most of the audience to sleep before you get anywhere near the "good" parts, and the payoff is probably little more than a CGI effects demo reel. Or you cut out most of the setting and simplify it to something like "space marines vs. tyranids on a space hulk", in which case why pay GW for the IP when you can just make your own Starship Troopers and/or Alien clone?

I found the original Ragnar books pretty compelling. I could see them becoming a movie. The first one would be (relatively) cheap, as there are no far-flung planets, just a single Hoth world.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mostly because the universe is primarily interesting as a setting rather than because there are particularly compelling characters or stories in it. Even fans of the IP are typically more invested in what's commonly called "lore" rather than in the setting's characters as characters. Further, virtually all existing 40k writing is very, very bad. Finally, the IP has basically no broader cultural cachet.

Compare to comic books. These are extremely character-focused, being concerned with the adventures and growth of particular heroes. They're basically ready-to-make movies -- starting with an origin story you can just lift whole comic arcs and put them on film, and they work as-is. Often the ideas in a comic book are at least potentially interesting -- the X-Men movies have made the most of this -- and, while execution can vary, the basic sort of Spiderman story is a solid one. Most importantly, comic characters have very broad appeal far beyond comic readership. Literally everyone knows who Superman is.

40k also doesn't really lend itself to the tone that people seem to want in blockbusters nowadays. Marvel's movies are basically without exception very fun; they're light, there are lots of jokes, they're very colorful, the violence is spectacular but not brutal, etc. There's lots of this even in Fox's X-Men movies, and I note that everyone agrees that the best thing they've done is Deadpool. The Dark Knight is really the only serious comic movie that's been well-received, and trying to match that tone with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman has not worked out well for Warner Bros. This isn't a new phenomenon.

40k probably works as a Metallocalypse-style parody of the sort of thing it is, maybe, though this might still only appeal to existing fans. But that's a low-budget cartoon, not a major blockbuster.

There's no reason that gripping narratives and exceptional characters can't be made for the film(s) - they wouldn't simply have to fixate on the one-dimensional characters written in the lore. And, if those characters are present, there is far more room to develop them in a film.

Rogue One was a tremendous success, with brand new hero's and a story that was only briefly touched upon in the OT (so, new characters, and a fleshed-out narrative). It's also much more serious than any other Star Wars film, and people applauded it for successfully depicting the war that was being fought - it gave a sense of immersion that the other movies didn't, due to it's maturity. Look at the LOTR films, Avatar (I know, I said it earlier), GoT, Harry Potter (it got a lot darker from around film 4/5 - both in narrative and colour), they're all critically-acclaimed and absolutely iconic - far more so than any fun spiderman film. I do believe that there is a a huge market for a 40k series, as long as it's not approached in the light-hearted, lightly entertaining way that most comic book movies are. Serious movies win oscars and are venerated throughout film history. Whilst fun, but, ultimately shallow movies are forgotten, or kept as cheap entertainment - until a new version is made, with updated visuals.

Edit: Imagine a horus heresy series. The possibilities for character development, exploration of morality and fellowship, of betrayal and mystery, are simply incredible. A good screenwriter could adapt the novels (which are, undeniably, very well-written - with very good dialogue), and turn it into an incredible story that anyone could appreciate. Market it as a new epic fantasy franchise, with a universe as dense as Tolkein's.

I think it is because for 4 reasons:

- very expensive. GW isn't that big of a company to invest money on film-making.

- IP protection. GW would want the adaptation to be as faithful as possible to the base material; but, as we know, studios will want to make the product more marketable (which imply changes).

- grimdark. GoT has hope; you know, in the end, the white walkers won't win. What's the point of showing series where everyone loses? Even zombie-themed movies have the main protagonist escaping/winning/etc.
In 40k, on the other hand, the Imperium (the most relatable of factions) have no hope at all. Beset by all sides - internally or externally - it's just decades from crumbling apart, piece by piece. Even if a battle is won here, many others are lost somewhere else. It's overwhelming in despair and unimportance for the common man. Generally, people don't want to see that.

- The 40k fanbase. It isn't that big to award a production like GoT. It's too niche.
40k needs heaps of popularity increase to at least reach a level that studios would be interested in it.
I think Fantasy is more marketable and easier to adapt to the screen.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mostly because the universe is primarily interesting as a setting rather than because there are particularly compelling characters or stories in it. Even fans of the IP are typically more invested in what's commonly called "lore" rather than in the setting's characters as characters. Further, virtually all existing 40k writing is very, very bad. Finally, the IP has basically no broader cultural cachet.

Compare to comic books. These are extremely character-focused, being concerned with the adventures and growth of particular heroes. They're basically ready-to-make movies -- starting with an origin story you can just lift whole comic arcs and put them on film, and they work as-is. Often the ideas in a comic book are at least potentially interesting -- the X-Men movies have made the most of this -- and, while execution can vary, the basic sort of Spiderman story is a solid one. Most importantly, comic characters have very broad appeal far beyond comic readership. Literally everyone knows who Superman is.

40k also doesn't really lend itself to the tone that people seem to want in blockbusters nowadays. Marvel's movies are basically without exception very fun; they're light, there are lots of jokes, they're very colorful, the violence is spectacular but not brutal, etc. There's lots of this even in Fox's X-Men movies, and I note that everyone agrees that the best thing they've done is Deadpool. The Dark Knight is really the only serious comic movie that's been well-received, and trying to match that tone with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman has not worked out well for Warner Bros. This isn't a new phenomenon.

40k probably works as a Metallocalypse-style parody of the sort of thing it is, maybe, though this might still only appeal to existing fans. But that's a low-budget cartoon, not a major blockbuster.

I agree 40k universe is just too grim and lacks charismatic heroes to make it work in a proper live action movie.

But actually the universe has MUCH to offer IF they'd put some work into Characters.

Lord Inquisitor is a really good start i think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZc6cr6G2E4

Stories evolving around a charismatic Inquisitor (he doesnt have to be THAT bad as in the "Lord Inquisitor" Prologue!) has a lot of potential.
Story should NOT focus on wars with Alien races or big Chaosdemon Invasions, with lots of gore, it could focus on more subtle demon infiltrations for example with a charismatic Inquisitor(ess?) hunting them down.

Well written, this could turn out more as a grim dark Bladerunner-cyberpunk-kind-of-thriller than a stupid Spess Marehns!ChainswordOrkMassacre.

The "theocratic british nazi empire" Bacon described(perfect ) has a lot of space to let characters evolve and progress to different levels of moral principles questioning their own behaviour and/or that of the whole Empire.
Viisually, it is perfect to draw attention to people who are just into "usual sci-fi"
Heck, you could even add crowd-pleasers for the mainstream in form of henchman, add a cocky smartass and a dumb idiot whos talking big and you are good to go, perfect Hollywood trio together with Ms. Inquisitoress(which looks hot OFC!)

Well, if that happens 50% of fanboys will cry that it is not a "true 40k" movie cuz dismembered Orks and chainswords are missing ;_; , but i would actually like this approach much more.

Lancelot185 wrote:
There's no reason that gripping narratives and exceptional characters can't be made for the film(s) - they wouldn't simply have to fixate on the one-dimensional characters written in the lore. And, if those characters are present, there is far more room to develop them in a film.

Rogue One was a tremendous success, with brand new hero's and a story that was only briefly touched upon in the OT (so, new characters, and a fleshed-out narrative). It's also much more serious than any other Star Wars film, and people applauded it for successfully depicting the war that was being fought - it gave a sense of immersion that the other movies didn't, due to it's maturity. Look at the LOTR films, Avatar (I know, I said it earlier), GoT, Harry Potter (it got a lot darker from around film 4/5 - both in narrative and colour), they're all critically-acclaimed and absolutely iconic - far more so than any fun spiderman film. I do believe that there is a a huge market for a 40k series, as long as it's not approached in the light-hearted, lightly entertaining way that most comic book movies are. Serious movies win oscars and are venerated throughout film history. Whilst fun, but, ultimately shallow movies are forgotten, or kept as cheap entertainment - until a new version is made, with updated visuals.

Sure, if you strip away basically everything about 40k which is characteristic of it you could maybe make a serious-ish movie/series that kind of looks like 40k if you squint. I mean, obviously Space Marines are right out. You want a more easily-differentiated cast and you definitely want some women, and you really don't have any reason to waste time on all of this genetically engineered, super-tall, black carapace bs. If you're going to have sentient aliens they really have to all be willing to talk to each other, and you want some clear good guys or at least anti-heroes with understandable personal motivations (that is, not loyalty to an evil empire).

So given that you've got this thing and it's pretty good, why would you ever attach the 40k brand to it? That's not a prestigious association.

Edit: I would also say that of your examples, Harry Potter and Star Wars are primarily known as fun properties. Harry Potter starts off downright whimsical. Sure, it gets darker later but that's after people get attached. Of course, LotR and Harry Potter were household names before they got movies. I am not sure that anyone now cares about Avatar even a little, and it was primarily sold as a 3D CG extravaganza. Certainly no one cared about the plot.

Lancelot185 wrote:
One was a tremendous success, with brand new hero's and a story that was only briefly touched upon in the OT (so, new characters, and a fleshed-out narrative).

Sure, but it had the advantage of existing in the Star Wars setting. That's guaranteed profit from obscene ticket sales (plus all the toy sales), no need to explain the basic concepts of the setting, and an audience that already has a stake in the outcome of the movie. None of that exists for 40k, you'd be starting over from the beginning. And Rogue One without the Star Wars IP would not have been anywhere near as big.

Edit: Imagine a horus heresy series. The possibilities for character development, exploration of morality and fellowship, of betrayal and mystery, are simply incredible. A good screenwriter could adapt the novels (which are, undeniably, very well-written - with very good dialogue), and turn it into an incredible story that anyone could appreciate. Market it as a new epic fantasy franchise, with a universe as dense as Tolkein's.

Yes, I can imagine a Heresy series. I can imagine a bloated mess like the novels have become, attempting to sell to an audience that doesn't already love 40k. I can imagine a spectacular failure on the scale that seriously risks destroying any company dumb enough to invest in it.

Sci fi in general has always had a hard time breaking out of any niche audience and into the mainstream. Star Trek did it mostly due to timing (being something unique on early color TV when there were only three channels), and Star Wars made it because of its unique mix of Cowboy Western and Greek Epic (and having a very simple and easy to understand story).

Honestly, I'm not sure if there's anything in the 40k universe that a general audience could latch onto. While there are many interesting characters, their stories and origins are so wildly different than anything in reality that it would be hard for any audience member to relate. The setting is way to wildly different than any era in history. Most sci-fi, despite having extravagant technologies, base the average lifestyle of its characters on either modern day or something else general audience know (eg. Medieval or Western).

40k is just too different imho. It's not a bad thing, it just means we won't see any movies/HBO miniseries in the setting.

Grim dark is not the problem. The problem is that there is no POV faction everyone can root for. They're all the bad guy. Even still, there are so many factions that you would need more than one movie to justify their existence and 40K isn't going to be a trilogy. If anything, 40K would be better off as a series. You could focus on a faction's struggle every episode and still manage to have a cohesive storyline.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Sci fi in general has always had a hard time breaking out of any niche audience and into the mainstream. Star Trek did it mostly due to timing (being something unique on early color TV when there were only three channels), and Star Wars made it because of its unique mix of Cowboy Western and Greek Epic (and having a very simple and easy to understand story).

Honestly, I'm not sure if there's anything in the 40k universe that a general audience could latch onto. While there are many interesting characters, their stories and origins are so

I'd disagree here. Scifi movies have made into the mainstream, and various "geek movies" making obscene amounts of money have made it clear that we aren't talking about a tiny niche market. Sure, plenty of scifi movies and shows fail, but plenty of action/romance/etc movies and shows fail just as badly. The problem with 40k is that it's 40k, not that scifi is inherently doomed.

Sure, if you strip away basically everything about 40k which is characteristic

It's defining characteristics are that it's grim, and everyone is varying degrees of immoral. That's a perfectly viable foundation from which to build a narrative (foundation is the key word), and it wouldn't diminish the 40k universe to do so.

So given that you've got this thing and it's pretty good, why would you ever attach the 40k brand to it?

You attach it to the 40k brand due to the universes unique art-style, complexity, comprehensiveness and opportunity to grow. 40k is a massive universe, with innumerable places to construct a good narrative, and iconic architecture, species etc that are clearly identifiable as 40k. You attach it to the 40k brand, because so much of the world-building has already been done for you. All you need do is put characters into the world and pick a storyline (or make your own). You don't need to spend years building a brand new, self-sufficient universe.

Sure, but it had the advantage of existing in the Star Wars setting

Star Wars began somewhere. And, it began with far less than any 40k film would. No sprawling, massive universe. No visual style. No prior fan-following. Nothing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type in "40k" in google images. That's why you attach it to the 40k brand. Anyone with a half-decent imagination can look at any one of those pictures and come up with stories. Furthermore, everything in those pictures already has backstory and concept art. It's a screenwriters playground.

Mutant Chronicles had a movie, not very good but at least John Malkovich is in it!

 Peregrine wrote:
There has been no 40k movie because the IP has zero value. The 40k brand has limited recognition outside of a niche market that can't buy enough tickets to make it profitable, and anyone who thinks that the 40k concept has value can just rip off the same sources that GW ripped off and make their own "grimdark space war" movie that is virtually identical to 40k as far as non-fanboy audiences are concerned.

Aside from the licensing issues 40k just isn't good movie material. It's great as a setting for writing your own stories and fighting your own battles, but the stories are mediocre at best. Characters are dull and seldom developed beyond a cliche or two and a listing of their equipment and combat skills, the plots are rarely more than straightforward military campaigns, and large parts of the fluff (especially since 5th edition) are just plain stupid. And to even attempt to turn this mediocrity into a story you have to spend vast amounts of effort establishing what the 40k setting is so that an unfamiliar audience has any clue what's going on. So you end up with a bloated mess of a movie that puts most of the audience to sleep before you get anywhere near the "good" parts, and the payoff is probably little more than a CGI effects demo reel. Or you cut out most of the setting and simplify it to something like "space marines vs. tyranids on a space hulk", in which case why pay GW for the IP when you can just make your own Starship Troopers and/or Alien clone?

QFT (in my opinion)

The characters suck, the cliche-ridden stories are boring; they make for good stories for people who already are involved in the games but mass-market appeal that would be necessary for a big-budget, hollywood style movie.....no way.

The only decent movie that could come out of the 40k universe would be about guardsmen and it would be so depressing that it would make movies like saving private ryan and dunkirk look like the happiest movies ever made.

You can't make a movie about space marines because it would be so boring since their portrayed as invulnerable, walking tanks of doom that can wipe out entire cities by themselves. /sarcasm

A 40k movie does not have to show the utter Grimdarkness of the whole settings at the start.
Look at how the Dredd movie toned down a lot of the 'Dredd-ness', and got on with the movie. Most people who wanted a full-on Judge Dredd movie got something. Coming at it from having no clue, it probably worked, too.

Start in a hive world, with a gang encountering a Genestealer cult.
An Agri-world family struggling to get by, and a call to war.
An IG outpost with an early warning of Orks.
Keep the big picture out of it, and you'll have a chance of a viable movie. Make the Grimdark happen in the background.

 Skinnereal wrote:
A 40k movie does not have to show the utter Grimdarkness of the whole settings at the start.
Look at how the Dredd movie toned down a lot of the 'Dredd-ness', and got on with the movie. Most people who wanted a full-on Judge Dredd movie got something. Coming at it from having no clue, it probably worked, too.

Start in a hive world, with a gang encountering a Genestealer cult.
An Agri-world family struggling to get by, and a call to war.
An IG outpost with an early warning of Orks.
Keep the big picture out of it, and you'll have a chance of a viable movie. Make the Grimdark happen in the background.

This. A 40k movie need not depict constant, massive battles with no discernible goal, and equally boring characters.

 Skinnereal wrote:
A 40k movie does not have to show the utter Grimdarkness of the whole settings at the start.
Look at how the Dredd movie toned down a lot of the 'Dredd-ness', and got on with the movie. Most people who wanted a full-on Judge Dredd movie got something. Coming at it from having no clue, it probably worked, too.

Start in a hive world, with a gang encountering a Genestealer cult.
An Agri-world family struggling to get by, and a call to war.
An IG outpost with an early warning of Orks.
Keep the big picture out of it, and you'll have a chance of a viable movie. Make the Grimdark happen in the background.

The newest dredd flick was pretty grim.
And enjoyable.
Background grimdark sure.
Servo skulls however need to be front and center alongside cyber cherubs and an inquisitor.
Should be a series first a la Dr. Who but with MOAR SKULLZ!

The traditional narratives of WH40k (poorly explained warfare, overly dramatic/bloated characterization of leaders, etc) would be absolutely, positively, undeniably wretched as a movie.

That said, WH40k's universe is vast, and there's undeniably a story line in there somewhere that would
A) be universally intriguing enough that the studio wouldn't have to rely on the 40k brand to bring people in;
B) have a specific point of view from which the story could be told; and
C) remain focused on the grim, dark nature of the 40k universe.

My money would be on following the Inquisition, and particularly Gregor Eisenhorn.

Inquisitorial mysteries, great overarching evils, corruption from within the government itself, enemies without... there's a lot for just about any viewer to latch on, and if done right, could properly portray the Imperium as the horrifying, fascist/nazi government that is is while being entirely necessary for the Imperium to continue to exist at all - that sort of controversial portrayal would be an excellent marketing tool.

Inquisitors are also, almost by definition, exceptional people surrounding themselves with exceptional help, which means you can easily add the sort of awesomesauce action scenes that would be necessary to attract the Michael Bay crowd, and Inquisitors interact with just about EVERY other aspect of the Imperium (Eisenhorn pretty much does exactly that - the administratum, the ministorum, the adeptus mechanicus, Space Marines, Guard, and (of course) other Inquisitors/inquisitorial hierarchy.

That would allow the movies to touch on almost all aspects of the Imperium (good for making WH40k fans happy) without focusing on any of them (good for not boring non-WH40k fans), and it combines the grimdark nature of WH40k with the sort of overarching mystery/story arch, filled to the brim with character development (probably subject to different emphases - I expect the Bequin/Eisenhorn thing would be more at the forefront) and driven as much by the characters themselves as the story pushing them along.




That said, it is unlikely to be done right, so even if an Eisenhorn trilogy could be potentially possible, I still find it unlikely (particularly because GW would be throwing hissy fits every time a single character's hair is out of place, metaphorically speaking).

 Skinnereal wrote:
A 40k movie does not have to show the utter Grimdarkness of the whole settings at the start.
Look at how the Dredd movie toned down a lot of the 'Dredd-ness', and got on with the movie. Most people who wanted a full-on Judge Dredd movie got something. Coming at it from having no clue, it probably worked, too.

Start in a hive world, with a gang encountering a Genestealer cult.
An Agri-world family struggling to get by, and a call to war.
An IG outpost with an early warning of Orks.
Keep the big picture out of it, and you'll have a chance of a viable movie. Make the Grimdark happen in the background.

So then why would you bother attaching the 40k IP to this? 40k is already not a huge deal, and only a small fraction of the people who are already interested in 40k are going to care about these kinds of things. That's not what's bringing most people to the IP -- there's a reason that the Dawn of War games are about Space Marines and ultraviolence. Why not just use an original IP, or better yet an IP that's more suited to this kind of story and which is actually popular?

Like, if the question is "Why has there never been a 40k movie" along these lines, then the answer seems obvious. Movie executives are not that dumb.

Done properly, and with a suitable scope and focus, a movie or mini-series (I personally see this working out a lot better than a feature film) is totally possible.

Everyone here is complaining how the characters are "lame and boring" but this is a massive universe, and creating a new inquisitor or new space marine protagonist would be the easiest thing in the world. For a mini-series, the story could easily take its time to fully flesh out without bombarding an unfamiliar audience with dozens of abstract things. Start slow with a few characters, some background, and then slowly widen the scope of the universe. It could be done.

Look at mini-series like American Horror Story and GoT - gritty, dark, violent, with the perfect cast and a slow build-up for each storyline. It could work with the right people developing and writing for it. Will it ever happen? I really doubt it.

Because it doesn't have tons of brand recognition with the mainline consumer, and (despite what space marine players claim), space marines are a terrible human face for a movie hero. They're utterly unrelatable emotionless god-humans.

But then what about the imperial guard? Sure, but there are a bunch of other franchises with better name recognition for an imperial guard style story that don't have the baggage of being strapped to the space nazi empire. Star wars. Starship troopers reboot. Aliens marines. And if you can't get brand recognition, you just go the Edge of Tomorrow and just take the aesthetics without having to be shackled to the whole brand. "Hey look, we can have an IG vs Tyranids movie with badass chainsaw wielding power armor babes and we don't have to adhere to some stupid existing universe OR pay royalties, we can just do whatever we want? Great!"

What sells movies these days is "I KNOW what that IS!" 40k doesn't have that with the average consumer.

The thing that killed Ultramarines for me (I could forgive some of the flaws, just not this one) was the degree to which they insisted on making everything look exactly like the models. The end result was awkward, wildly uncanny-valley, and distracted from any effort to make anything make sense on screen by just looking disturbing and wrong all the time (especially when the Daemon Prince shows up and is very obviously just the old metal one with the giant backpack struts skittering around like some amateur's first animation project).

If GW wanted to make a movie that didn't look like crap they'd have to make the effects on screen better than the models, and while I will acknowledge it's possible (see: conversation cutscenes in the Space Marine video game) I don't think GW's current tunnel-vision focus on only portraying things that happen on the tabletop would permit them to do it.

There are people who would go to a theater to watch a two-hour fight scene with terrible character animations, overblown special effects, impossibly cheesy '80s dialogue, no relatable characters, no women, nigh-constant bizarre religious ranting, and enough racist/fascist overtones to get the film boycotted by almost everyone, but I doubt there would be enough to make it a profitable endeavor.

W40k would probably suck as a movie. Movies are about plotlines, storytelling and characters. W40k lore is almost exclusively background and exposition, simply because that is what is needed in a game.

If somebody made the Godfather, Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane into a tabletop game, that game would probably suck big time and for the same reasons.